Petty Annoyances

[dopper]

I listen to Corey Graves' podcast every week. I think he's a good interviewer and he gets consistently interesting guests.

 

But every single week, without fail, he will at some point say something alone the lines of "What I'm about to say is going to be talked about for days on social media" or "I know the dirtsheet writers are listening to this..." but I have never seen anything about any of his podcasts talked about on social media. Ever.

 

There are ways to big-yourself-up and acknowledge that your opinions go against the grain, but it's a petty annoyance when he constantly claims that everybody is taking notice when nobody actually is.  

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, dopper said:

"I know the dirtsheet writers are listening to this..."

There's got to be no better way of making them no-sell your podcast than saying that.

[Vamp]

3 hours ago, BomberPat said:

 

I'm a firm believer that placing restrictions upon something is how you get genuinely great work, in any creative discipline - if you have a completely blank canvas, and all options available to you, you're never going to do your best work, because there's nothing forcing you to stop and think. In wrestling terms, the rules should provide some of those restrictions, and that only works if the rules are established and enforced properly, from the top down, to the referees, and to the announce team.

If I was a booker (which I clearly shouldn't be given what I'm about to say), I'd put restrictions on different matches. Things like "your leg gets hurt in the first minute, you can't run or go to the top rope," or "neither of you can get your finisher in, you're going to have to end the match another way" just to see what wrestlers come up with and to create a bit of variety. 

I think the issue with the rules is more an issue of wrestling's prevelance for shorthand. When people complain about the Irish whip being illogical, I don't think the problem is necessarily realism as much as the fact that it isn't explained how it might work. If there was more of a struggle with the push into the ropes, it would look more like there was a reason for it working, but there rarely is. It's kind of just assumed. Most iterations of the International chain sequence have this problem. 

I'm not arguing for wrestling to slow down. But there is something very satisfying about seeing someone struggle out of a headlock rather than just shooting someone to the ropes. And you can see how that's been shortened down from taking hours to taking minutes to taking seconds, but I think you lose something when it's skipped altogether.

I know some of that sounds very Jim Cornette. 

I actually think it'd be quite interesting to explore the semiotics of wrestling because I do think there's something interesting going on there. 

 

[LaGoosh]

2 hours ago, dopper said:

But every single week, without fail, he will at some point say something alone the lines of "What I'm about to say is going to be talked about for days on social media" or "I know the dirtsheet writers are listening to this..." but I have never seen anything about any of his podcasts talked about on social media. Ever.

I didn't even know he had a podcast. 

[air_raid]

On 7/22/2022 at 6:07 PM, Vamp said:

"neither of you can get your finisher in, you're going to have to end the match another way" just to see what wrestlers come up with and to create a bit of variety. 

Bret was the best (there ever was) at this. Once he lost the title first time to Yokozuna, the % of PPV matches he’d win with the Sharpshooter before leaving the WWF is much lower than you think compared to winning with reversals, the Victory Roll/small package/La Magistral family of roll ups or other means. Even on Coliseum you could find the odd sunset flip or schoolboy and on the road his first run of defences against Owen were a OConner roll finish for two months or so.

On 7/22/2022 at 6:07 PM, Vamp said:

But there is something very satisfying about seeing someone struggle out of a headlock rather than just shooting someone to the ropes.

Doug Williams circa 2003 was an absolute king at the headlock stuff. His opponent would do various escapes and always end up right back in it. Unfortunately I can’t remember who he was wrestling when I saw the best version of those sequences but I’m fairly sure it was in the FWA and against an import.

EDIT - possibly Chris Daniels, who's somehow become maligned for (scoff) "video game wrestling" but is as good as they come. Their match at ROH Night of Champions was a blinder where each worked a body part and they worked all that into the home stretch, specifically Williams' targeting of Daniels' neck.

Edited July 25, 2022 by air_raid

[Version1.0]

It's a Tag Team Championship (singular) and Tag Team Titles (plural) because there are two physical titles.

It's amazing how many wrestlers get this wrong. 

[air_raid]

5 hours ago, Version1.0 said:

It's a Tag Team Championship (singular) and Tag Team Titles (plural) because there are two physical titles.

It's amazing how many wrestlers get this wrong. 

A title isn’t physical though, is it? The belt is physical. Unless we’re using WWE speak where you can’t say belt, so it becomes “he hit him over the head with the championship” - in which case there are definitely two championships.

”Titles” is a misnomer to me. The title is the championship regardless of how many people that championship is held by.

[Tim Healys Chutney Spoon]

Huge groups of 'security' that get smashed all over thr place in the ring.....yet like on AEW this week 6-7 of them managed to keep Swerve and Hangman apart backstage despite them having a huge reason to smash eachother to pieces. 

[The King Of Swing]

Table spots in regular matches.

[IronSheik]

I always found it silly when wrestlers removed the monitors (because they're sharp and dense I assume) before doing spots on the announce table. 

[air_raid]

10 hours ago, IronSheik said:

I always found it silly when wrestlers removed the monitors (because they're sharp and dense I assume) before doing spots on the announce table. 

It’s one of those things that you understand why the human beings do it but in the context of creating believable pretend violence, makes no sense as to why the characters would do it.

Like shooting people to stand side on to a monitor so the camera can also see what’s on it.

[Chris B]

11 hours ago, IronSheik said:

I always found it silly when wrestlers removed the monitors (because they're sharp and dense I assume) before doing spots on the announce table. 

They'd have to pay the cost of the monitors being replaced.

[air_raid]

4 minutes ago, Chris B said:

They'd have to pay the cost of the monitors being replaced.

Is that a kayfabe reason though? If the wrestlers in storyline are liable for damages then the Dudley Boys will have virtually been wrestling for free for all the tables they obliterated in 2000. And Big Show destroyed a Titan Tron once.

[Chris B]

2 minutes ago, air_raid said:

Is that a kayfabe reason though? If the wrestlers in storyline are liable for damages then the Dudley Boys will have virtually been wrestling for free for all the tables they obliterated in 2000. And Big Show destroyed a Titan Tron once.

The Dudley Boys weren't exactly known for their good decision-making. Nor was Big Show Besides, one table out of their pay is enough without having to add a couple of monitors on the top of it. Those monitors would add up.

Basically, tables are cheaper than monitors.

[Roy]

On 7/22/2022 at 6:07 PM, Vamp said:

If I was a booker (which I clearly shouldn't be given what I'm about to say), I'd put restrictions on different matches. Things like "your leg gets hurt in the first minute, you can't run or go to the top rope," or "neither of you can get your finisher in, you're going to have to end the match another way" just to see what wrestlers come up with and to create a bit of variety. 

I think the issue with the rules is more an issue of wrestling's prevelance for shorthand. When people complain about the Irish whip being illogical, I don't think the problem is necessarily realism as much as the fact that it isn't explained how it might work. If there was more of a struggle with the push into the ropes, it would look more like there was a reason for it working, but there rarely is. It's kind of just assumed. Most iterations of the International chain sequence have this problem. 

I'm not arguing for wrestling to slow down. But there is something very satisfying about seeing someone struggle out of a headlock rather than just shooting someone to the ropes. And you can see how that's been shortened down from taking hours to taking minutes to taking seconds, but I think you lose something when it's skipped altogether.

I know some of that sounds very Jim Cornette. 

I actually think it'd be quite interesting to explore the semiotics of wrestling because I do think there's something interesting going on there. 

 

I couldn't agree with you more @Vamp - it's the accumulation of these seemingly incosequential details that imbue viewers with a sense of engagement and captivate the live audience. I guess it's an investment in the suspension of disbelief that is at the crux of the performative aspect of the business. We all know it's a work, but if I'm signing up to watching this within a certain context then I don't want to be insulted.

On the semiotics of wrestling, if you haven't read the extract by Roland Barthes in his book Mythologies about wrestling, you should - it will be right up your street:

https://www.sholetteseminars.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/BarthesWrestling..pdf